Interim report: Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in healthy chilean adults in a phase 3 clinical trial

Challenges in Emerging Vaccines and Future Promising Candidates against SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) virus has evolved into variants with varied infectivity. Vaccines developed against COVID-19 infection have boosted immunity, but there is still uncertainty on how long the immunity from natural infection or vaccination will last. The present study attempts to outline the present level of information about the contagiousness and spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants of interest and variants of concern (VOCs). The keywords like COVID-19 vaccine types, VOCs, universal vaccines, bivalent, and other relevant terms were searched in NCBI, Science Direct, and WHO databases to review the published literature. The review provides an integrative discussion on the current state of knowledge on the type of vaccines developed against SARS-CoV-2, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines concerning the VOCs, and prospects of novel universal, chimeric, and bivalent mRNA vaccines efficacy to fend off existing variants and other emerging coronaviruses. Genomic variation can be quite significant, as seen by the notable differences in impact, transmission rate, morbidity, and death during several human coronavirus outbreaks. Therefore, understanding the amount and characteristics of coronavirus genetic diversity in historical and contemporary strains can help researchers get an edge over upcoming variants.

Statistical explanation of the protective effect of four COVID-19 vaccine doses in the general population

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of four doses of the vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in the general population and the impact of this on the severity of the disease by age group.

Methods

By using data from the health authority public data base, we build statistical models using R and the GAMLSS library to explain the behavior of new SARS-CoV-2 infections, active COVID-19 cases, ICU bed requirement total and by age group, and deaths at the national level.

Results

The four doses of vaccine and at least the interaction between the first and second doses were important explanatory factors for the protective effect against COVID-19. The R2 for new cases per day was 0.5644 and for occupied ICU beds the R2 is 0.9487. For occupied ICU beds for >70 years R2 is 0.9195 and with the interaction between 4 doses as the main factor.

Conclusions

Although the increase in the number of vaccine doses did not adequately explain the decrease in the number of COVID-19 cases, it explained the decrease in ICU admissions and deaths nationwide and by age group.

Comparison of Antibody Responses After CoronaVac and BNT162b2 Vaccines in Healthcare Workers

Since the initial outbreak in late December 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a significant healthcare issue worldwide. Despite patients getting the total recommended doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, it is still unable to stop the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Our study aimed to evaluate the antibody response in the 3rd month after two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine and after a single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. One hundred thirty-five people from Tarsus State Hospital health workers were included in the study. We collected serum samples from healthcare workers 3 months post-vaccination, and the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Quanti-Vac ELISA IgG kit coated with recombinant S1 antigen was used to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Antibody levels of BNT162b2 (last vaccine) patients are significantly higher than CoronaVac ones (p < 0.05). It was determined that those who do not have a concomitant disease and those who do not smoke have higher antibody levels after CoronaVac than the others (p < 0.05). It was determined that 53.1% of 32 patients with pain, swelling, redness at the vaccination site after CoronaVac did not have pain/swelling/redness at the vaccination site after BNT162b2 (p < 0.05). Headache was also more common after CoronaVac compared to the BNT162b2 vaccine (p < 0.05). In conclusion, IgG seropositivity was lower after CoronaVac than BNT162b2, and the antibody level for CoronaVac recipients has decreased over time since vaccination, but not for BNT162b2 recipients.

Efficacy of Vaccine Protection Against COVID-19 Virus Infection in Patients with Chronic Liver Diseases

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 is a useful weapon to combat the virus. Patients with chronic liver diseases (CLDs), including compensated or decompensated liver cirrhosis and noncirrhotic diseases, have a decreased immunologic response to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. At the same time, they have increased mortality if infected. Current data show a reduction in mortality when patients with chronic liver diseases are vaccinated. A suboptimal vaccine response has been observed in liver transplant recipients, especially those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, so an early booster dose is recommended to achieve a better protective effect. Currently, there are no clinical data comparing the protective efficacy of different vaccines in patients with chronic liver diseases. Patient preference, availability of the vaccine in the country or area, and adverse effect profiles are factors to consider when choosing a vaccine. There have been reports of immune-mediated hepatitis after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and clinicians should be aware of that potential side effect. Most patients who developed hepatitis after vaccination responded well to treatment with prednisolone, but an alternative type of vaccine should be considered for subsequent booster doses. Further prospective studies are required to investigate the duration of immunity and protection against different viral variants in patients with chronic liver diseases or liver transplant recipients, as well as the effect of heterologous vaccination.

Human memory T cell dynamics after aluminum-adjuvanted inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

This study evaluates the functional capacity of CD4+ and CD8+ terminally-differentiated effector (TEMRA), central memory (TCM), and effector memory (TEM) cells obtained from the volunteers vaccinated with an aluminum-adjuvanted inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac). The volunteers were followed for T cell immune responses following the termination of a randomized phase III clinical trial. Seven days and four months after the second dose of the vaccine, the memory T cell subsets were collected and stimulated by autologous monocyte-derived dendritic cells (mDCs) loaded with SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein S1. Compared to the placebo group, memory T cells from the vaccinated individuals significantly proliferated in response to S1-loaded mDCs. CD4+ and CD8+ memory T cell proliferation was detected in 86% and 78% of the vaccinated individuals, respectively. More than 73% (after a short-term) and 62% (after an intermediate-term) of the vaccinated individuals harbored TCM and/or TEM cells that responded to S1-loaded mDCs by secreting IFN-γ. The expression of CD25, CD38, 4-1BB, PD-1, and CD107a indicated a modulation in the memory T cell subsets. Especially on day 120, PD-1 was upregulated on CD4+ TEMRA and TCM, and on CD8+ TEM and TCM cells; accordingly, proliferation and IFN-γ secretion capacities tended to decline after 4 months. In conclusion, the combination of inactivated whole-virion particles with aluminum adjuvants possesses capacities to induce functional T cell responses.

Review of therapeutic mechanisms and applications based on SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies

COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health emergency. Despite extensive research, there are still few effective treatment options available today. Neutralizing-antibody-based treatments offer a broad range of applications, including the prevention and treatment of acute infectious diseases. Hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody studies are currently underway around the world, with some already in clinical applications. The development of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody opens up a new therapeutic option for COVID-19. We intend to review our current knowledge about antibodies targeting various regions (i.e., RBD regions, non-RBD regions, host cell targets, and cross-neutralizing antibodies), as well as the current scientific evidence for neutralizing-antibody-based treatments based on convalescent plasma therapy, intravenous immunoglobulin, monoclonal antibodies, and recombinant drugs. The functional evaluation of antibodies (i.e., in vitro or in vivo assays) is also discussed. Finally, some current issues in the field of neutralizing-antibody-based therapies are highlighted.

Application of Traditional Vaccine Development Strategies to SARS-CoV-2

Over the past 150 years, vaccines have revolutionized the relationship between people and disease. During the COVID-19 pandemic, technologies such as mRNA vaccines have received attention due to their novelty and successes. However, more traditional vaccine development platforms have also yielded important tools in the worldwide fight against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. A variety of approaches have been used to develop COVID-19 vaccines that are now authorized for use in countries around the world. In this review, we highlight strategies that focus on the viral capsid and outwards, rather than on the nucleic acids inside. These approaches fall into two broad categories: whole-virus vaccines and subunit vaccines. Whole-virus vaccines use the virus itself, either in an inactivated or attenuated state. Subunit vaccines contain instead an isolated, immunogenic component of the virus. Here, we highlight vaccine candidates that apply these approaches against SARS-CoV-2 in different ways. In a companion manuscript, we review the more recent and novel development of nucleic-acid based vaccine technologies. We further consider the role that these COVID-19 vaccine development programs have played in prophylaxis at the global scale. Well-established vaccine technologies have proved especially important to making vaccines accessible in low- and middle-income countries. Vaccine development programs that use established platforms have been undertaken in a much wider range of countries than those using nucleic-acid-based technologies, which have been led by wealthy Western countries. Therefore, these vaccine platforms, though less novel from a biotechnological standpoint, have proven to be extremely important to the management of SARS-CoV-2.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND

Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Post-vaccination seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 in peruvian health workers vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm)

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of post-vaccination seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 and identify its predictors in Peruvian Social Health Insurance (EsSalud) personnel in 2021.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in a representative simple stratified sample of EsSalud workers. We evaluated IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies response (seropositivity) by passive (previous infection) and active immunization (vaccination), and epidemiological and occupational variables obtained by direct interview and a data collection form. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used with correction of sample weights adjusted for non-response rate, and crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR) and geometric mean ratio (GMR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1077 subjects. Seropositivity was 67.4% (95%CI: 63.4-71.1). Predictors of seropositivity were age (negative relation; p < 0.001), previous infection (aOR = 11.7; 95%CI: 7.81-17.5), working in COVID-19 area (aOR = 1.47; 95%CI: 1.02-2.11) and time since the second dose. In relation to antibody levels measured by geometric means, there was an association between male sex (aGMR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.74-0.80), age (negative relation; p < 0.001), previous infection (aGMR = 13.1; 95%CI:4.99-34.40), non-face-to-face/licensed work modality (aGMR = 0.78; 95%CI: 0.73-0.84), being a nursing technician (aGMR = 1.30; 95%CI: 1.20-1.41), working in administrative areas (aGMR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.10-1.25), diagnostic support (aGMR = 1.07; 95%CI: 1.01-1.15), critical care (aGMR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.79-0.93), and in a COVID-19 area (aGMR = 1.30; 95%CI: 1.24-1.36) and time since receiving the second dose (negative relation; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Seropositivity and antibody levels decrease as the time since receiving the second dose increases. Older age and no history of previous infection were associated with lower seropositivity and antibody values. These findings may be useful for sentinel antibody surveillance and the design of booster dose strategies.

Phenotypic and functional changes of T cell subsets after CoronaVac vaccination

BACKGROUND

The pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major global public health concern and several protective vaccines, or preventive/therapeutic approaches have been developed. Sinovac-CoronaVac, an inactivated whole virus vaccine, can protect against severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalization, but less is known whether it elicits long-term T cell responses and provides prolonged protection.

METHODS

This is a longitudinal surveillance study of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD)-specific IgG levels, neutralizing antibody levels (NAb), T cell subsets and activation, and memory B cells of 335 participants who received two doses of CoronaVac. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific IgG levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), while NAb were measured against two strains of SARS-CoV-2, the Wuhan and Delta variants. Activated T cells and subsets were identified by flow cytometry. Memory B and T cells were evaluated by enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot (ELISpot).

FINDINGS

Two doses of CoronaVac elicited serum anti-RBD antibody response, elevated B cells with NAb capacity and CD4⁺ T cell-, but not CD8⁺ T cell-responses. Among the CD4⁺ T cells, CoronaVac activated mainly Th2 (CD4⁺ T) cells. Serum antibody levels significantly declined three months after the second dose.

INTERPRETATION

CoronaVac mainly activated B cells but T cells, especially Th1 cells, were poorly activated. Activated T cells were mainly Th2 biased, demonstrating development of effector B cells but not long-lasting memory plasma cells. Taken together, these results suggest that protection with CoronaVac is short-lived and that a third booster dose of vaccine may improve protection.

Current GMP standards for the production of vaccines and antibodies: An overview

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products made under good manufacturing practices (GMP) must comply with the guidelines of national regulatory bodies based on international or regional compendia. The existence of this type of regulation allows pharmaceutical laboratories to count on the standardization of high-quality production processes, obtaining a safe product for human use, with a positive impact on public health. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of having more and better-distributed manufacturing plants, emphasizing regions such as Latin America. This review shows the most important GMP standards in the world and, in particular, their relevance in the production of vaccines and antibodies.

COVID-19 Vaccine in Inherited Metabolic Disorders Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study on Rate of Acceptance, Safety Profile and Effect on Disease

BACKGROUND

Vaccines for COVID-19 have had a significant impact on the spread of COVID-19 infection, reducing the incidence and mortality of the infection in several countries. However, hesitancy toward this vaccine is a global health issue for the general population The Vaccine acceptance rate among patients affected with inherited metabolic disorders (IMD), as well as safety profile, has not been described.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study, based on a telephone survey, investigating the COVID-19 vaccination rate, the incidence and type of adverse effects (AEs), the reasons for vaccine refusal and the effects on the underlying disease in a cohort of IMD patients followed at a single center and invited directly to vaccination by specialistic team.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were included in the study, the median age was 23.4 years (min 12.1-max 61.7), 47% (n = 85) were females and 61% (107) were affected from impaired metabolism of phenylalanine. By October 2021, 94% (n = 163) of them had received at least one dose of the vaccine, which was, in 98% of cases, mRNA-based vaccine, given at the referral hospital in 65% of cases. Overall, 72% of patients with IMD reported AE to the vaccine: 60% after the first dose, 81% after the second. The highest rate of adverse events at the first dose was reported in patients with amino acids related disorders other than impaired phenylalanine metabolism (PKU/HPA) (88%). For the second dose, the PKU/HPA group reported the highest rate of AEs (89% of cases). There was no effect on the underlying disease or acute decompensation after the vaccine. Eleven patients (6%) were not vaccinated because they considered it dangerous.

CONCLUSION

Among individuals with IMD, the vaccination rate was high, the incidence and severity of AEs were comparable to those in the general population with no effects on the disease. Direct contact with the specialist medical team, has proven to reassure patients and effectively contrast hesitancy.

Cutaneous reactions after COVID-19 vaccination in Turkey: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

In this study covering all of Turkey, we aimed to define cutaneous and systemic adverse reactions in our patient population after COVID-19 vaccination with the Sinovac/CoronaVac (inactivated SARS-CoV-2) and Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines.

METHODS

This prospective, cross-sectional study included individuals presenting to the dermatology or emergency outpatient clinics of a total of 19 centers after having been vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Systemic, local injection site, and non-local cutaneous reactions after vaccination were identified, and their rates were determined.

RESULTS

Of the 2290 individuals vaccinated between April 15 and July 15, 2021, 2097 (91.6%) received the CoronaVac vaccine and 183 (8%) BioNTech. Systemic reactions were observed at a rate of 31.0% after the first CoronaVac dose, 31.1% after the second CoronaVac dose, 46.4% after the first BioNTech dose, and 46.2% after the second BioNTech dose. Local injection site reactions were detected at a rate of 35.6% after the first CoronaVac dose, 35.7% after the second CoronaVac dose, 86.9% after the first BioNTech dose, and 94.1% after the second BioNTech dose. A total of 133 non-local cutaneous reactions were identified after the CoronaVac vaccine (2.9% after the first dose and 3.5% after the second dose), with the most common being urticaria/angioedema, pityriasis rosea, herpes zoster, and maculopapular rash. After BioNTech, 39 non-local cutaneous reactions were observed to have developed (24.8% after the first dose and 5% after the second dose), and the most common were herpes zoster, delayed large local reaction, pityriasis rosea, and urticaria/angioedema in order of frequency. Existing autoimmune diseases were triggered in 2.1% of the patients vaccinated with CoronaVac and 8.2% of those vaccinated with BioNTech.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no comprehensive data on cutaneous adverse reactions specific to the CoronaVac vaccine. We determined the frequency of adverse reactions from the dermatologist's point of view after CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccination and identified a wide spectrum of non-local cutaneous reactions. Our data show that CoronaVac is associated with less harmful reactions while BioNTech may result in more serious reactions, such as herpes zoster, anaphylaxis, and triggering of autoimmunity. However, most of these reactions were self-limiting or required little therapeutic intervention.

A Review on Immunological Responses to SARS-CoV-2 and Various COVID-19 Vaccine Regimens

The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has caused serious health crises globally. So far, 7 vaccines that are already being assessed in Phase IV clinical trials are, Comirnaty/ Pfizer; Spikevax/Moderna (m RNA vaccine); Vaxzevria or Covishield; Ad26.COV2.S; Ad5-nCoV (adenoviral vector-based vaccine); CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV (inactivated virus vaccine). Besides, there are about 280 vaccines that are undergoing preclinical and clinical trials including Sputnik-V, Covaxin or BBV152, and NVX-CoV2373. These vaccines are being studied for their immunological responses and efficiency against COVID-19, and have been reported to demonstrate effective T and B cell responses. However, the long-lasting immunity of these vaccine regimens still needs to be investigated. An in-depth understanding of the vaccine efficacy and immune control mechanism is imperative for the rational purposing and implementation of the vaccines. Hence, in this review, we have comprehensively discussed the immune response induced in COVID-19 patients, as well as in the convalescent individuals to avoid reinfection. Moreover, we have also summarized the immunological responses and prophylactic efficacy of various COVID-19 vaccine regimens. In this context, this review can give insights into the development of effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants in the future.

Evaluation of the Immune Response Induced by CoronaVac 28-Day Schedule Vaccination in a Healthy Population Group

CoronaVac vaccine from Sinovac Life Science is currently being used in several countries. In Chile, the effectiveness of preventing hospitalization is higher than 80% with a vaccination schedule. However, to date, there are no data about immune response induction or specific memory. For this reason, we recruited 15 volunteers without previous suspected/diagnosed COVID-19 and with negative PCR over time to evaluate the immune response to CoronaVac 28 and 90 days after the second immunization (dpi). The CoronaVac administration induces total and neutralizing anti-spike antibodies in all vaccinated volunteers at 28 and 90 dpi. Furthermore, using ELISpot analysis to assay cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, we found an increase in IFN-gamma- and Granzyme B-producing cells in vaccinated volunteers at 28 and 90 dpi. Together, our results indicate that CoronaVac induces a robust humoral immune response and cellular immune memory of at least 90 dpi.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

T Cells Targeting SARS-CoV-2: By Infection, Vaccination, and Against Future Variants

T cell responses are a key cornerstone to viral immunity to drive high-quality antibody responses, establishing memory for recall and for viral clearance. Inefficient recruitment of T cell responses plays a role in the development of severe COVID-19 and is also represented by reduced cellular responses in men, children, and diversity compared with other epitope-specific subsets and available T cell receptor diversity. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses are elicited by multiple vaccine formats and augmented by prior infection for hybrid immunity. Epitope conservation is relatively well-maintained leading to T cell crossreactivity for variants of concern that have diminished serological responses.

Messenger RNA-based vaccines: Past, present, and future directions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

mRNA vaccines have received major attention in the fight against COVID-19. Formulations from companies such as Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer have allowed us to slowly ease the social distancing measures, mask requirements, and lockdowns that have been prevalent since early 2020. This past year's focused work on mRNA vaccines has catapulted this technology to the forefront of public awareness and additional research pursuits, thus leading to new potential for bionanotechnology principles to help drive further innovation using mRNA. In addition to alleviating the burden of COVID-19, mRNA vaccines could potentially provide long-term solutions all over the world for diseases ranging from influenza to AIDS. Herein, we provide a brief commentary based on the history and development of mRNA vaccines in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we address current research using the technology and future directions of mRNA vaccine research.

VLP-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: An Adaptable Technology against the Threat of New Variants

Virus-like particles (VLPs) are a versatile, safe, and highly immunogenic vaccine platform. Recently, there are developmental vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic affected humanity worldwide, bringing out incomputable human and financial losses. The race for better, more efficacious vaccines is happening almost simultaneously as the virus increasingly produces variants of concern (VOCs). The VOCs Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta share common mutations mainly in the spike receptor-binding domain (RBD), demonstrating convergent evolution, associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion. Thus, the identification and understanding of these mutations is crucial for the production of new, optimized vaccines. The use of a very flexible vaccine platform in COVID-19 vaccine development is an important feature that cannot be ignored. Incorporating the spike protein and its variations into VLP vaccines is a desirable strategy as the morphology and size of VLPs allows for better presentation of several different antigens. Furthermore, VLPs elicit robust humoral and cellular immune responses, which are safe, and have been studied not only against SARS-CoV-2 but against other coronaviruses as well. Here, we describe the recent advances and improvements in vaccine development using VLP technology.

Immune Evasive Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Variants to COVID-19 Emergency Used Vaccines

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a serious threat to global public health and social and economic development. Various vaccine platforms have been developed rapidly and unprecedentedly, and at least 16 vaccines receive emergency use authorization (EUA). However, the causative pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has continued to evolve and mutate, emerging lots of viral variants. Several variants have successfully become the predominant strains and spread all over the world because of their ability to evade the pre-existing immunity obtained after previous infections with prototype strain or immunizations. Here, we summarized the prevalence and biological structure of these variants and the efficacy of currently used vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 variants to provide guidance on how to design vaccines more rationally against the variants.

The Mucosal and Serological Immune Responses to the Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccines

Background

Although the serological antibody responses induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are well characterized, little is known about their ability to elicit mucosal immunity.

Objectives

This study aims to examine and compare the mucosal and systemic responses of recipients of two different vaccination platforms: mRNA (Comirnaty) and inactivated virus (CoronaVac).

Methods

Serial blood and nasal epithelial lining fluid (NELF) samples were collected from the recipients of either Comirnaty or CoronaVac. The plasma and NELF immunoglobulins A and G (IgA and IgG) specific to SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein (S1) and their neutralization effects were quantified.

Results

Comirnaty induced nasal S1-specific immunoglobulin responses, which were evident as early as 14 ± 2 days after the first dose. In 64% of the subjects, the neutralizing effects of NELF persisted for at least 50 days. Moreover, 85% of Comirnaty recipients exhibited S1-specific IgA and IgG responses in plasma by 14 ± 2 days after the first dose. By 7 ± 2 days after the booster, all plasma samples possessed S1-specific IgA and IgG responses and were neutralizing. The induction of S1-specific plasma antibodies by CoronaVac was IgG dominant, and 83% of the subjects possessed S1-specific IgG by 7 ± 2 days after the booster, with neutralizing effects.

Conclusion

Comirnaty induces S1-specific IgA and IgG responses with neutralizing activity in the nasal mucosa; a similar response is not seen with CoronaVac.

Clinical Implication

The presence of a nasal response with mRNA vaccine may provide additional protection compared with inactivated virus vaccine. However, whether such widespread immunological response may produce inadvertent adverse effects in other tissues warrants further investigation.

Immune Profile and Clinical Outcome of Breakthrough Cases After Vaccination With an Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Constant efforts to prevent infections by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are actively carried out around the world. Several vaccines are currently approved for emergency use in the population, while ongoing studies continue to provide information on their safety and effectiveness. CoronaVac is an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine with a good safety and immunogenicity profile as seen in phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials around the world, with an effectiveness of 65.9% for symptomatic cases. Although vaccination reduces the risk of disease, infections can still occur during or after completion of the vaccination schedule (breakthrough cases). This report describes the clinical and immunological profile of vaccine breakthrough cases reported in a clinical trial in progress in Chile that is evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of two vaccination schedules of CoronaVac (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04651790). Out of the 2,263 fully vaccinated subjects, at end of June 2021, 45 have reported symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection 14 or more days after the second dose (1.99% of fully vaccinated subjects). Of the 45 breakthrough cases, 96% developed mild disease; one case developed a moderate disease; and one developed a severe disease and required mechanical ventilation. Both cases that developed moderate and severe disease were adults over 60 years old and presented comorbidities. The immune response before and after SARS-CoV-2 infection was analyzed in nine vaccine breakthrough cases, revealing that six of them exhibited circulating anti-S1-RBD IgG antibodies with neutralizing capacities after immunization, which showed a significant increase 2 and 4 weeks after symptoms onset. Two cases exhibited low circulating anti-S1-RBD IgG and almost non-existing neutralizing capacity after either vaccination or infection, although they developed a mild disease. An increase in the number of interferon-γ-secreting T cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 was detected 2 weeks after the second dose in seven cases and after symptoms onset. In conclusion, breakthrough cases were mostly mild and did not necessarily correlate with a lack of vaccine-induced immunity, suggesting that other factors, to be defined in future studies, could lead to symptomatic infection after vaccination with CoronaVac.

Should a third booster dose be scheduled after two doses of CoronaVac? A single-center experience

In the 10th month of the pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccination was given first to healthcare workers in Turkey after receiving emergency use approval from the Ministry of Health. This study, which was performed at the COVID‐19 reference center in Ankara (the capital of Turkey) aimed to evaluate the seroconversion rate of the CoronaVac vaccine. The anti‐spike immunoglobulin G response to the two‐dose vaccination was retrospectively examined in healthcare workers who had no previous history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. The postvaccine seroconversion rate was investigated by measuring the antibody levels of healthcare workers who had received CoronaVac. Vaccination was administered as 600 SU in 28‐day intervals. The healthcare workers' anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G levels were used to determine the seroconversion rate 2 months after the second dose of the vaccine. Of the healthcare workers, 22.9% (n = 155) were seronegative. The younger the age of the participant, the higher the level of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G. Furthermore, anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G levels were much higher in women than men.

This study provided strong evidence for the administration of a booster dose.To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study in the literature on the decrease of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G levels in older people.

Vaccination Is Not Enough: Understanding the Increase in Cases of COVID-19 in Chile despite a High Vaccination Rate

Chile, an OECD country in the southern hemisphere, surprised the world with a high speed COVID-19 vaccination rate at the beginning of 2021. Despite this, cases reached a record high again in April 2021, and the country went back to a state of emergency. The reasons for this are multiple, complex, and interconnected. A feeling of false safety with the beginning of vaccination, the appearance of new more transmissible variants, too early relaxation of non-pharmacological measures at a point of vaccination below herd immunity, and vaccination in a high prevalence setting, appear to be main reasons for the resurgence. However, the political context and the socio-economic inequalities in Chile also play an important role, and are more difficult to measure and to compare with other countries. In conclusion, the Chilean example is a warning sign not to count on vaccination figures alone, and to maintain some of the previous non-pharmaceutical strategies to contain the pandemic.

Effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine in older adults during a gamma variant associated epidemic of covid-19 in Brazil: test negative case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effectiveness of the inactivated whole virus vaccine, CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech), against symptomatic covid-19 in the elderly population of São Paulo state, Brazil during widespread circulation of the gamma variant.

DESIGN

Test negative case-control study.

SETTING

Community testing for covid-19 in São Paulo state, Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

43 774 adults aged ≥70 years who were residents of São Paulo state and underwent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 from 17 January to 29 April 2021. 26 433 cases with symptomatic covid-19 and 17 622 test negative controls with covid-19 symptoms were formed into 13 283 matched sets, one case with to up to five controls, according to age, sex, self-reported race, municipality of residence, previous covid-19 status, and date of RT-PCR test (±3 days).

INTERVENTION

Vaccination with a two dose regimen of CoronaVac.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic covid-19 and associated hospital admissions and deaths.

RESULTS

Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic covid-19 was 24.7% (95% confidence interval 14.7% to 33.4%) at 0-13 days and 46.8% (38.7% to 53.8%) at ≥14 days after the second dose. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions was 55.5% (46.5% to 62.9%) and against deaths was 61.2% (48.9% to 70.5%) at ≥14 days after the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness ≥14 days after the second dose was highest for the youngest age group (70-74 years)-59.0% (43.7% to 70.2%) against symptomatic disease, 77.6% (62.5% to 86.7%) against hospital admissions, and 83.9% (59.2% to 93.7%) against deaths-and declined with increasing age.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination with CoronaVac was associated with a reduction in symptomatic covid-19, hospital admissions, and deaths in adults aged ≥70 years in a setting with extensive transmission of the gamma variant. Vaccine protection was, however, low until completion of the two dose regimen, and vaccine effectiveness was observe to decline with increasing age among this elderly population.

COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Maintenance Hemodialysis

The COVID-19 pandemic has infected more than 180 million people and caused more than 3.95 million deaths worldwide. In addition to personal hygiene, augmented cleaning, social distancing, and isolation, vaccine development and immunization are essential for this highly contagious disease. Patients with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) have a greater risk of COVID-19 infection owing to their comorbidities, defective immunity, and repeated crowded in-center dialysis settings. However, many patients hesitate to get vaccinated because of their misunderstandings. The Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination has been intensively discussed in the general population, whereas the data concerning the effectiveness of vaccination in MHD patients are relatively scanty. Nevertheless, those limited publications can provide some valuable information. Overall, lower and more delayed antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination were observed in patients with MHD than in healthy controls in the settings of different populations, vaccines and dosage, definitions of the immune response, and antibody detection timepoints. Younger age, previous COVID-19 infection, and higher serum albumin level were positively associated with antibody formation, whereas older age and receiving immunosuppressive therapy were unfavorable factors. However, it remains uncertain between the elicited antibodies following vaccination and the genuine protection against COVID-19 infection. Patients with MHD should make their COVID-19 vaccination a priority in addition to other protective measures. More studies focusing on different vaccines, non-humoral immune responses, and risk-benefit analyses are warranted.

Immunogenicity of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines at different vaccination intervals

To evaluate the immunogenicity of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines administered at different intervals. Subjects who had received two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines at an interval of 21 days or 1–7 months were selected to collect 5 ml of venous blood after the second dose for the detection of specific IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 using the chemiluminescent immunoassay. Blood samples were collected from 348 and 174 individuals vaccinated at an interval of 21 days or 1–7 months, respectively. Seropositive rate 2 weeks after two doses of vaccination at 21-days and 1–7 months interval was 95.7% and 97.1%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. The post-vaccination antibody level was 23.7 with 21-days interval, higher than 14.2 with 1–7 months interval. Among the individuals vaccinated with two doses more than 1-month apart, seropositive rate was 98.5%, 90.0%, 91.7%, and 100% with 1- month (1–2 months, 2 months was not included, the same below), 2- month, 3- month, and 4–7 months of interval, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was observed. Appropriate extension of the vaccination interval between two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine does not affect the production of specific IgG antibodies. The inactivated COVID-19 vaccine should be administered in accordance with the recommended vaccination schedule, and the vaccination interval can be extended appropriately under special circumstances.

Evaluation of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

The rapid process of research and development and lack of follow-up time post-vaccination aroused great public concern about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. To provide comprehensive overview of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines by using meta-analysis technique.

METHODS

English-language articles and results posted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PMC, official regulatory websites, and post-authorization safety surveillance data were searched through June 12, 2021. Publications disclosing safety data of COVID-19 candidate vaccines in humans were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled incidence and the pooled rate ratio (RR) of safety outcomes of COVID-19 vaccines using different platforms.

RESULTS

A total of 87 publications with safety data from clinical trials and post-authorization studies of 19 COVID-19 vaccines on 6 different platforms were included. The pooled rates of local and systemic reactions were significantly lower among inactivated vaccines (23.7%, 21.0%), protein subunit vaccines (33.0%, 22.3%), and DNA vaccines (39.5%, 29.3%), compared to RNA vaccines (89.4%, 83.3%), non-replicating vector vaccines (55.9%, 66.3%), and virus-like particle vaccines (100.0%, 78.9%). Solicited injection-site pain was the most common local reactions, and fatigue and headache were the most common systemic reactions. The frequency of vaccine-related serious adverse events was low (< 0.1%) and balanced between treatment groups. Vaccine platforms and age groups of vaccine recipients accounted for much of the heterogeneity in safety profiles between COVID-19 vaccines. Reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization observational studies were similar to results from clinical trials. Crude reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization safety monitoring (passive surveillance) were lower than in clinical trials and varied between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile. Additional studies and long-term population-level surveillance are strongly encouraged to further define the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

Effectiveness of CoronaVac among healthcare workers in the setting of high SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant transmission in Manaus, Brazil: A test-negative case-control study

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant, Gamma, emerged in the city of Manaus in late 2020 during a large resurgence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and has spread throughout Brazil. The effectiveness of vaccines in settings with widespread Gamma variant transmission has not been reported.

Methods

We performed a matched test-negative case-control study to estimate the effectiveness of an inactivated vaccine, CoronaVac, in healthcare workers (HCWs) in Manaus, where the Gamma variant accounted for 86% of genotyped SARS-CoV-2 samples at the peak of its epidemic. We performed an early analysis of effectiveness following administration of at least one vaccine dose and an analysis of effectiveness of the two-dose schedule. The primary outcome was symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Findings

For the early at-least-one-dose and two-dose analyses the study population was, respectively, 53,176 and 53,153 HCWs residing in Manaus and aged 18 years or older, with complete information on age, residence, and vaccination status. Among 53,153 HCWs eligible for the two-dose analysis, 47,170 (89%) received at least one dose of CoronaVac and 2,656 individuals (5%) underwent RT-PCR testing from 19 January, 2021 to 13 April, 2021. Of 3,195 RT-PCR tests, 885 (28%) were positive. 393 and 418 case-control pairs were selected for the early and two-dose analyses, respectively, matched on calendar time, age, and neighbourhood. Among those who had received both vaccine doses before the RT-PCR sample collection date, the average time from second dose to sample collection date was 14 days (IQR 7-24). In the early analysis, vaccination with at least one dose was associated with a 0.50-fold reduction (adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE), 49.6%, 95% CI 11.3 to 71.4) in the odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during the period 14 days or more after receiving the first dose. However, we estimated low effectiveness (adjusted VE 36.8%, 95% CI -54.9 to 74.2) of the two-dose schedule against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during the period 14 days or more after receiving the second dose. A finding that vaccinated individuals were much more likely to be infected than unvaccinated individuals in the period 0-13 days after first dose (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.36-3.27) suggests that unmeasured confounding led to downward bias in the vaccine effectiveness estimate.

Interpretation

Evidence from this test-negative study of the effectiveness of CoronaVac was mixed, and likely affected by bias in this setting. Administration of at least one vaccine dose showed effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the setting of epidemic Gamma variant transmission. However, the low estimated effectiveness of the two-dose schedule underscores the need to maintain non-pharmaceutical interventions while vaccination campaigns with CoronaVac are being implemented.

Funding

Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Municipal Health Secretary of Manaus; Fundação de Vigilância em Saúde do Amazonas

Antibody response to inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) in immune-mediated diseases: a controlled study among hospital workers and elderly

OBJECTIVE

To assess antibody response to inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in patients with immune-mediated diseases (IMD) among hospital workers and people aged 65 and older.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we studied 82 hospital workers with IMD (mean age: 42.2 ± 10.0 years) and 300 (mean age: 41.7 ± 9.9 years) controls. Among + 65 aged population, we studied 22 (mean age: 71.4 ± 4.5 years) patients and 47 controls (mean age: 70.9 ± 4.8 years). All study subjects had a negative history for COVID-19. Sera were obtained after at least 21 days following the second vaccination. Anti-spike IgG antibody titers were measured quantitatively using a commercially available immunoassay method.

RESULTS

Patients with IMD were significantly less likely to have detectable antibodies than healthy controls both among the hospital workers (92.7% vs 99.7%, p < 0.001) and elderly population (77.3% vs 97.9%, p = 0.011). Among patients with IMD, those using immunosuppressive or immune-modulating drugs (64/75, 85.3%) were significantly less likely to have detectable antibodies compared to those off treatment (29/29, 100%) (p = 0.029). Additionally, a negative association between age and the antibody titer categories among patients (r = - 0.352; p < 0.001) and controls (r = - 0.258; p < 0.001) were demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospital workers, the vast majority of patients with IMD and immunocompetent controls developed a significant humoral response following the administration of the second dose of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. This was also true for the elderly population, albeit with lower antibody titers. Immunosuppressive use, particularly rituximab significantly reduced antibody titers. Antibody titers were significantly lower among those aged ≥ 60 years both in patient and control populations. Whether these individuals should get a booster dose warrants further studies.